W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2012

Draft minutes for the TAG teleconference of 2 February 2012

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:10:31 +0000
Message-Id: <5426A00D-D740-4370-B528-38101F37613E@jenitennison.com>
To: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
Draft minutes of the 2 February 2012 TAG telconference can now be found here:

  http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/02/02-minutes

and are replicated below. Sorry for the delay.

Jeni

---

   [1]W3C

      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - DRAFT -

              Technical Architecture Group Teleconference

02 Feb 2012

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/02/02-agenda

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2012/02/02-tagmem-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Larry_Masinter, Jeni_Tennison, Noah_Mendelsohn,
          Jonathan_Rees, Peter_Linss, Robin_Berjon, Henry_Thompson,
          Yves_Lafon, Tim_Berners-Lee

   Regrets
          Ashok, Peter_(partial), Jeni_(partial)

   Chair
          Noah Mendelsohn

   Scribe
          Jeni Tennison

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Convene
         2. [6]Approve minutes of prior meeting(s)
         3. [7]Administrative items
         4. [8]ISSUE-66 (mimeAndWeb-66-27): MIME and the Web
         5. [9]References to specifications that may update
         6. [10]HTML5 Last Call
         7. [11]MIME and the Web product
         8. [12]Pending review items
     * [13]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________

   <trackbot> Date: 02 February 2012

   <JeniT> Scribe: Jeni Tennison

   <JeniT> ScribeNick: JeniT

Convene

   plinss: possible regrets next week

   noah: Storage discussion will be on agenda next week

   Larry: confirm scribe next week

Approve minutes of prior meeting(s)

   RESOLUTION: Approve minutes of 26 January 2012
   [14]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/01/26-minutes

     [14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/01/26-minutes

   noah: still missing minutes of 19 January 2012

Administrative items

   noah: wanted to check on status of HTML/XML unification report, and
   on client-side state work, wait for Yves
   ... also waiting on Dan to provide a section on web apps for report
   for Jeff

   <jar> I urge to expedite

   darobin: I can email Dan and see what he has, and try to finalise it

   noah: context is Jeff asked for warning about topics that are
   high-risk
   ... we went through list at last F2F
   ... Dan's was on native apps vs web apps on mobile devices
   ... Yves, we have two notes pending, can you tell us status?

   Yves: I've done modifications and am waiting for final OK to request
   publication on Raman's note
   ... The HTML/XML report has to get approval, hopefully published
   Tues

   noah: any objections to Yves' draft?

   <Yves> [15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/01/note/hashinuri.html

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/01/note/hashinuri.html

   RESOLUTION: TAG asks Yves to go ahead and publish note based on
   Raman's client-side FPWD, and we approve the latest frontmatter from
   Yves' email

ISSUE-66 (mimeAndWeb-66-27): MIME and the Web

   Larry: I'm at the end of what I can do on these actions alone
   ... they might not be done, but I need guidance from the rest of the
   TAG about how to take them forward

   noah: we have been doing work on mime on the web for quite some time
   ... first round resulted in Larry publishing IETF draft
   ... proposal was whether we should do more

   <Larry>
   [16]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-masinter-mime-web-info-02

     [16] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-masinter-mime-web-info-02

   <Larry> action-531?

   <trackbot> ACTION-531 -- Larry Masinter to draft document on
   architectural good practice relating to registries -- due 2011-12-26
   -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [17]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/531

     [17] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/531

   noah: I think Larry wants help here?

   Larry: the feedback I got was that maybe there was work on
   registeries we could do
   ... from the evolution document

   <Larry>
   [18]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/Registries.html

     [18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/Registries.html

   JeniT: I thought it was interesting and good work, that I thought we
   should move forward

   <jar> jeni is saying what I was going to say: It's good work, ought
   to be continued

   Larry: this tries to separate out issues about evolution, references
   and persistence
   ... we have work on persistence, establishing meaning of URIs, and
   identifiers that are URIs or identifiers in a registry
   ... we have some practices around registries that, in the IETF, the
   registries are managed by IANA
   ... so there are some documents about IANA registries
   ... but W3C could sponsor other registries that weren't IANA
   registries

   <jar> managed by IANA *under IETF direction*, right?...

   Larry: and maybe there's more to say about that
   ... I felt like maybe it's a paper for 'Philosophy and the Web'
   rather than a TAG topic
   ... I'd like to collaborate with someone else on it

   noah: so, there's whether the work shows up as a TAG finding or in a
   workshop
   ... and there's whether you do it alone or who's with you
   ... and any set of combinations makes sense
   ... so what's your preference?

   Larry: I'd like someone else to lead and I'll follow

   noah: is there anyone on the call who would like to do it?

   ht: "this" is the general status of registries, the goal of
   registries in web architecture?

   <Larry> in particular start with
   [19]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/Registries.html

     [19] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/Registries.html

   timbl: is it with the same scope as that draft?

   <noah> I heard him say "yes, that scope"

   Larry: yes, as in that document

   JeniT: Pick me, but only after the publishing and linking is done

   noah: Publishing & Linking is the one that worries me about winding
   up needing multiple tries
   ... I'm worried that if you can't overlap them then this will really
   put off work on registries

   JeniT: I'm interested, but can't take on more work right now

   <jar> ditto

   <Larry> mainly i want to close this action item

   <timbl> I am happy to review it, but can't lead

   Larry: let's close the action item, and if someone else takes it on,
   open another action item

   noah: we'll close this action, and I'll take a long-term action that
   when the copyrighting/linking stuff wraps, we can talk about Jeni
   taking this on

   <noah> close ACTION-531

   <trackbot> ACTION-531 Draft document on architectural good practice
   relating to registries closed

   <noah> ACTION: Noah to check, when publishing and linking wraps,
   whether it's time to reinvest in
   [20]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/Registries.html
   [recorded in
   [21]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/02/02-minutes#action01]

     [20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/Registries.html

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-667 - Check, when publishing and linking
   wraps, whether it's time to reinvest in
   [22]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/Registries.html on
   Noah Mendelsohn - due 2012-02-09].

     [22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/Registries.html

   <noah> ACTION-667 Due 2012-04-01

   <trackbot> ACTION-667 Check, when publishing and linking wraps,
   whether it's time to reinvest in
   [23]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/Registries.html due
   date now 2012-04-01

     [23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/Registries.html

   <noah> ACTION-595?

   <trackbot> ACTION-595 -- Larry Masinter to draft a report on Mime
   and the Web -- due 2012-01-24 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [24]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/595

     [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/595

   noah: Your thoughts, Larry?

   Larry: mime provides a way of giving a persistent name for a
   language, which is different from a persistent name for a
   specification
   ... it's another issue where I think I understand it, but I don't
   know what we as a group want to say about it
   ... I get the impression that other TAG members aren't really into
   this
   ... that it's on the periphery

   timbl: I don't think it's on the periphery, I think that mime is an
   important keystone
   ... other issues such as Javascript modules, and RDFa and HTML, are
   more topical

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to talk about worries about versioning

   <Larry> should we wait until we're done with registries to tackle
   mime?

   noah: I'm interested, but I'm worried that it leads into territory
   that the TAG has shown itself to not be good at closing on
   ... I thought the specific thing about the registration of media
   types where the specifications evolve
   ... lots of people think they know how it works, but we all think
   about it differently
   ... it's not lack of interest, just a sense that I'm not confident
   that we could get there

   <Larry> maybe 'versioning' has become a bogeyman for the TAG?
   aversion to versioning

   noah: if we could do something in 2-4 pages that was a how-to, then
   that would be great work
   ... but I think we'd thrash on it

   jar: I'd like the more scientific approach rather than the
   prescriptive approach
   ... I think someone should write it down

   noah: that's why I thought a wiki would be a good space to start
   ... but we didn't get to an agreement on how to do that
   ... the default is to close it and walk away

   Larry: one thing to do, once we've done registries, we could take
   another task on the mime registry in particular
   ... it's the media type registry that's of interest here

   <Larry> well, and the charset registry

   <Larry> and the 'willful violation' issues around registries whose
   values are ignored for some purposes

   noah: minute that we might want to revisit the issues of mime and
   mime registration after the registries work is done

   Larry: yes, add media type and charset registries to the reminder

   <Larry> there's
   [25]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/MIME.html

     [25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/MIME.html

   noah: why don't you take responsibility to make sure that's included
   in scope when we look at registries

   Larry: there is a document on MIME in particular (linked here)
   ... which points to the registry document, and raises specific
   issues around what MIME tries to name, and polyglot/multi-views etc
   ... some of the issues that would have to be done in a full
   exposition of MIME and the web
   ... so this document is a draft of what such a report might look
   like

   noah: I thought the point was to not do the MIME-specific stuff,
   except in so far as it informs the general story

   <noah> ACTION-595?

   <trackbot> ACTION-595 -- Larry Masinter to draft a report on Mime
   and the Web -- due 2012-01-24 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [26]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/595

     [26] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/595

   noah: Right, and we're proposing to put that off until at least
   after the general registries work is done, right?

   Larry: I've added a link in that action item to the report
   ... so the action item is done

   noah: usually a draft means that we're going to carry it forward,
   but I think you're saying put that draft down for now

   Larry: yes, until someone else wants to do the work on turning that
   into a TAG document

   noah: is there anyone else who wants to pick this up?

   <Larry> and perhaps this is to just serialize this work so that the
   tag can take up things one at a time

   Larry: basically there's a big raft of work and we need to focus on
   one thing at a time
   ... taking it up after doing registries is fine

   noah: how should we track this?

   <noah> close ACTION-595

   <trackbot> ACTION-595 Draft a report on Mime and the Web closed

   JeniT: suggest long-term action

   <noah> ACTION: Noah to eventually, probably after registries work is
   done, ask whether TAG wants to reinvest in MIME/Web Due 2013-01-31
   [recorded in
   [27]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/02/02-minutes#action02]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-668 - Eventually, probably after
   registries work is done, ask whether TAG wants to reinvest in
   MIME/Web Due 2013-01-31 [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2012-02-09].

   <Larry> might put
   [28]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/MIME.html in -668
   as a starting point

     [28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/MIME.html

   <noah> ACTION-668 Due 2013-01-31

   <trackbot> ACTION-668 Eventually, probably after registries work is
   done, ask whether TAG wants to reinvest in MIME/Web Due 2013-01-31
   due date now 2013-01-31

   <noah> ACTION-636?

   <trackbot> ACTION-636 -- Larry Masinter to update product page for
   Mime and the Web -- due 2012-01-17 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot> [29]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/636

     [29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/636

   noah: purpose of project pages is to set down goals/dates/success
   criteria on big work
   ... we have draft pages on mime work
   ... my impression is that it doesn't tell the story of the first
   round of work, about the IETF draft
   ... I think it would be good to include that, and talk about what
   future work we might do
   ... such as registries

   <scribe> ScribeNick: jar

   <Larry> the product page depends on what others are willing to do,
   which i didn't have a good view

   Larry: the product page is a commitment, so since there is no
   commitment - well, let's turn it into a wrapup page.

   noah: Briefly tell the story of the successful work that happened
   ... Say we considered another round, and this is just on hold

   <Larry> action-636

   <Larry> action-636?

   <trackbot> ACTION-636 -- Larry Masinter to update product page for
   Mime and the Web -- due 2012-01-17 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [30]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/636

     [30] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/636

   <noah> ACTION-636 Due 2012-02-03

   <trackbot> ACTION-636 Update product page for Mime and the Web due
   date now 2012-02-03

   noah: thank you

   <Larry> ok

References to specifications that may update

   <Larry> action-350?

   <trackbot> ACTION-350 -- Larry Masinter to revise
   [31]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Oct/0075.html
   based on feedback on www-tag and the feedback from TAG f2f
   2009-12-09 discussion -- due 2011-11-29 -- PENDINGREVIEW

     [31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Oct/0075.html

   <trackbot> [32]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/350

     [32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/350

   <noah> ACTION-350?

   <trackbot> ACTION-350 -- Larry Masinter to revise
   [33]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Oct/0075.html
   based on feedback on www-tag and the feedback from TAG f2f
   2009-12-09 discussion -- due 2011-11-29 -- PENDINGREVIEW

     [33] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Oct/0075.html

   <trackbot> [34]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/350

     [34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/350

   <noah> "Best practice for referring to specifications which may
   update"
   [35]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Oct/0075.html

     [35] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Oct/0075.html

   noah: Henry had written ...
   ... Larry took action 350, where he came up with a different
   approach

   Larry: I can't say it's an alternate proposal - I just didn't like
   where it was going

   <Larry> i didn't really think i had something 'better' except a
   direction

   <noah> I put Larry's proposed test in an e-mail:
   [36]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Jan/0043.html

     [36] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Jan/0043.html

   noah: some people liked Larry's writeup more than others. left off
   with discussion of QA group's rec

   Larry: action started in 2009. we talked, investigated. I suggested
   closing.

   <Larry> [37]http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#ref-define-practice

     [37] http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#ref-define-practice

   <noah> Thanks Larry

   ht: I need to review in more detail
   ... what I wrote was what I understood to be practice that several
   WGs have been following
   ... so those wgs were not following the QA advice -or maybe I did a
   poor job of reconstructing their practices?
   ... I can't contribute to a decision since I haven't formed an
   opinion

   Larry: ht to take an action?

   ht: I'd only get to it this summer, but will do it if you like. Else
   you can close it.

   noah: Preferences? Worth waiting that long?

   ht: sure, but understand that there's no rush, sodue maybe this
   summer.

   <noah> ACTION: Henry to review
   [38]http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#ref-define-practice and see
   whether TAG needs to do more on references to evolving specs Due:
   2012-08-01 [recorded in
   [39]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/02/02-minutes#action03]

     [38] http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#ref-define-practice

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-669 - Review
   [40]http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#ref-define-practice and see
   whether TAG needs to do more on references to evolving specs Due:
   2012-08-01 [on Henry Thompson - due 2012-02-09].

     [40] http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#ref-define-practice

   <noah> close ACTION-530

   <trackbot> ACTION-530 Draft slides for IETF meeting, with help from
   Larry Due 2011-02-22 closed

HTML5 Last Call

   <noah> ACTION-644?

   <trackbot> ACTION-644 -- Larry Masinter to draft proposed
   alternative text to e-mail announcing end of "product" work on HTML
   5 last call (
   [41]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011Dec/0041.html ) Due
   2012-01-10 -- due 2012-01-10 -- PENDINGREVIEW

     [41] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011Dec/0041.html

   <trackbot> [42]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/644

     [42] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/644

   noah: I wrote draft email announcement, LM revised it
   ... I'm fine with LM's

   [43]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/html5review.html ?

     [43] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/html5review.html

   <noah> Draft page from Larry:
   [44]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/html5review

     [44] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/html5review

   <noah>
   [45]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/html5review-2011-12-21.html

     [45] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/html5review-2011-12-21.html

   <Larry> you already did that, Noah

   <noah> close ACTION-644

   <trackbot> ACTION-644 Draft proposed alternative text to e-mail
   announcing end of "product" work on HTML 5 last call (
   [46]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011Dec/0041.html ) Due
   2012-01-10 closed

     [46] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011Dec/0041.html

   noah: all done here.

   <Larry> this was done a long time ago, we just overlooked closing
   the action

MIME and the Web product

   <noah> Please look at:
   [47]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/index-2012-01-12.html

     [47] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/index-2012-01-12.html

   noah: No longer a priority product, OK?

   <Larry> we'll do that after TAG reviews the final product page

   Larry: Let me finish product page and get review before dropping
   priority?

   RESOLUTION: The TAG is closing its work on MIME/Web, noting
   successful completion of 1st round of work. Product priority list to
   be updated after closing product page approved.

   <noah> ACTION: Noah to update product priority list to mark MIMEWeb
   completed after final product page available Due 2012-03-01
   [recorded in
   [48]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/02/02-minutes#action04]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-670 - Update product priority list to mark
   MIMEWeb completed after final product page available Due 2012-03-01
   [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2012-02-09].

Pending review items

   <noah>
   [49]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingreview?sor
   t=owner

     [49] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingreview?sort=owner

   <Yves>
   [50]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Feb/0021.html

     [50] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Feb/0021.html

   <darobin>
   [51]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/apiminimization-2012-02-02.h
   tml

     [51] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/apiminimization-2012-02-02.html

   ht: Maybe discuss e-mail from robin
   [52]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Feb/0021.html

     [52] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Feb/0021.html

   <noah> Product page draft is at:
   [53]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/apiminimization-2012-02-02.h
   tml

     [53] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/apiminimization-2012-02-02.html

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to make a chair's comment on scope

   Robin: Broadened scope [see cover email linked from minutes]

   <darobin> just a little bit of background on fingerprinting if it
   helps: [54]http://panopticlick.eff.org/

     [54] http://panopticlick.eff.org/

   Robin: ... that would make the finding more coherent.

   noah: I'd prefer to get this little piece out sooner, then broader
   thing as followon

   Robin: I understand, but I''m fairly confident that (a) can draft
   before next f2f, (b) problem with only minimization is that it is
   not timely - not relevant to APIs currently be designed -
   fingerprinting is a priority
   ... designs of APIs have changed since we started looking at this
   ... not a huge difference in workload to tackle entire thing instead
   of just part of it

   noah: There's a bad history behind this general approach.

   <Zakim> jar, you wanted to push back a tiny bit

   <Larry> there's more to API minimization than what we're talking
   about

   jar: I don't disagree with any of that, but... it seems to me
   fingerprinting is different from minimization. Not convinced it has
   to do with privacy. Not sure others agree. I tend to feel things
   that are mainly technical in practice feel more like security than
   privacy.

   Robin: I somewhat agree. minimization is on the fence between
   security and privacy

   <Larry> for example, geopriv in IETF took a policy approach that all
   locale information should be accompanied by an minimal expiration
   policy and a distribution policy . API minimization is only one part

   <Larry> [55]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-25

     [55] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-25

   noah: Continue or take it to e-mail...this was an unplanned
   discussion

   jar: We have 15 mins

   Larry: I've been worried about the TAG pulling on a thread in this
   area... there's a huge body of work on this
   ... don't know how to part without getting sucked into something
   much bigger

   <Larry> [56]http://www.w3.org/2009/policy-ws/papers/Tschofenig.pdf

     [56] http://www.w3.org/2009/policy-ws/papers/Tschofenig.pdf

   Robin: Agree. can't extract API minimisation from privacy context

   <Larry> [57]http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3693.txt

     [57] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3693.txt

   noah: What I assumed scope was narrow, about granularity of requests
   -> might help privacy goals. People disagreed

   Robin: How to present to users choices (in UI) about what info to
   give
   ... Very similar to fingerprinting
   ... user gets to pick which camera to expose

   <Larry> look at RFC 3693 section 1 for a broader set of requirements

   noah: Min. was cast as a JS API thing, fingerprinting was about what
   was on the wire?

   Robin: You can do some MITM fingerprinting, but that doesn't go as
   far as JS-based fingerprinting
   ... Don't want to discuss every possible kind of fingerprinting,
   only scope is JS APIs
   ... I forgot there were other kinds of APIs

   noah: I'm OK with doing something broader, but keep your eyes open,
   don't thrash

   <Larry> I think this touches on too much and that a TAG document in
   this area without addressing the broad scope is really unlikely to
   be constructive to the privacy community

   <Larry> -1

   <darobin> +1 :)

   Larry: Field is large, complex , many people working on it, TAG
   contribution unlikely to be helpful to people working on the area

   Robin: To be clear, the primary customer is not the privacy
   community, it's the API design community

   Larry: Motivation for talking about APIs - there are lots of
   guidelines for API design, we don't want to get into that business
   either - too big similarly
   ... another community to integrate with

   <Larry> API design guidelines for web APIs?

   <noah> I agree with Larry in the following sense: if we're going to
   say that minimization is related to fingerprinting...well...anything
   we do with API design is going to drag us into the many broader
   issues of good API design.

   Robin: There are lots of guidelines, but very few for Web APIs, they
   are sorely missing, this is a real need

   <timbl> I think that Dan A may say that it would be worth just
   having the API minimization done say just that before doing
   something larger

   <Larry> so the client side storage finding might recommend API
   design?

   Robin: very useful, a community we need to engage with. This is a
   good start, test the waters
   ... I propose, let me start on broader scope, then retreat if
   necessary

   <Larry> i don't think it's foolish, it's more a matter of setting
   context

   noah: I hear some concern APIs get us in hot water

   <Larry> I think we need a framework for understanding how the work
   fits into webarch and other things

   timbl: If Dan were on the call, he'd advocate for API minimization
   *because* it's limited... that was the approach he favored for TAG
   publications, small
   ... later aggregation works

   <noah> Would it make sense to do a product page which is, for a few
   weeks, not settled on scope, and sets April as a decision time on
   scope?

   Robin: My problem - I don't think this is such a big broadening of
   scope. Let me clarify in followup. Dan & I have talked to other
   groups, and they don't really care, too fuzzy, whereas
   fingerprinting comes up all the time

   <noah> I'm personally not that enamored of minimization, but the
   question is only partly whether other people like it: the question
   is whether there's a sound architectural principle they should learn

   <Larry> i'm still not clear about whether this is 'good practices
   for API design' in general, or 'good practices for Privacy' or
   something else.

   <darobin> Larry, the former

   noah: (listing options)

   <Larry> design principles and recommendations need to be in the
   context of a problem they're solving

   adjourned.

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Henry to review
   [58]http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#ref-define-practice and see
   whether TAG needs to do more on references to evolving specs Due:
   2012-08-01 [recorded in
   [59]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/02/02-minutes#action03]
   [NEW] ACTION: Noah to check, when publishing and linking wraps,
   whether it's time to reinvest in
   [60]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/Registries.html
   [recorded in
   [61]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/02/02-minutes#action01]
   [NEW] ACTION: Noah to eventually, probably after registries work is
   done, ask whether TAG wants to reinvest in MIME/Web Due 2013-01-31
   [recorded in
   [62]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/02/02-minutes#action02]
   [NEW] ACTION: Noah to update product priority list to mark MIMEWeb
   completed after final product page available Due 2012-03-01
   [recorded in
   [63]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/02/02-minutes#action04]

     [58] http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#ref-define-practice
     [60] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/Registries.html

   [End of minutes]
     _________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [64]scribe.perl version 1.136
    ([65]CVS log)
    $Date: 2012/02/07 20:23:19 $

     [64] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [65] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/


-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 08:13:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:45 GMT